2026/00104597
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | Draft Notice of Appeal (PDF, 261.6 KB) | |
| Applicant | Summary of Argument (PDF, 259.0 KB) | |
| 1/6/2026 | Applicant | Reply (PDF, 326.7 KB) |
| 4/6/2026 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 668.0 KB) |
| 9/6/2026 | Applicant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 87.3 KB) |
COSTS – the applicant seeks leave to appeal from the security for costs order in the sum of $166,000, made by Newlinds J in the District Court on 23 February 2026. The applicant engaged the respondent, a subcontractor, to perform work on a construction project. In July 2025, the respondent commenced an adjudication process under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), which resulted in an award of $112,029.60 in favour of the respondent. That $112,029.60 remains unpaid. The applicant argues that its claim in the District Court is in substance a cross-claim answering the respondent's claim under the Act. The grounds of appeal are that the primary judge erred by: (1) failing to properly consider the material before him in relation to the applicant's financial position; (2) failing to have regard to the context of the outstanding judgment debt; (3) considering the applicant's unwillingness to pay the outstanding judgment debt as a matter relevant to whether it will be unable to meet a future costs order; (4) drawing an inference not supported by evidence, namely that the directors of the applicant might have a propensity to organise the corporation's affairs in the future to be unable to pay a particular debt; (5) finding that the applicant will be unable to pay any costs order at some point in the future and (6) failing to consider the merits and circumstances of the proceeding.
Last updated: